Author
Topic: When Was Jesus Born Again? (Read 12450 times)

Well, at least the 4 gospels agree that he was born, and rougly in the period of the legendmaking, so plus or minus 10 years. The death and resurrection and stuff are fuzzier. I always imagine him going up to heaven in a cosmic escalator. But what did he do with the body? Nobody else takes their body, at least not for now. Not even God has a body.

Indeed.I meant that apparently he was not at the time the story takes place.

I'm curious, do you have an opinion on what timeperiod that was?

Quote

No...are you? Are you trying to use it to prove he didn't?..I guess I just don't understand the significance of Quirinius at all. What does it prove either way?

Lots of Christians have tried to claim that since there was a govenor and a census mentioned in the bible, that means that their supposed messiah existed. Since there is no evidence for any Jesus Christ existed, no date of birth, conflicting accounts in the books that are supposed to document his life divinely, no biblical events documented anywhere or supported by archeology, etc, Christians are left with a myth that is a lot like other myths from the era, that mention real people and places but aren't true at all.

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

Indeed.I meant that apparently he was not at the time the story takes place.

I'm curious, do you have an opinion on what timeperiod that was?

The article cited in OP seems to indicate it was 2 CE when Quirinius was not governor

Quote

Quote

No...are you? Are you trying to use it to prove he didn't?..I guess I just don't understand the significance of Quirinius at all. What does it prove either way?

Lots of Christians have tried to claim that since there was a governor and a census mentioned in the bible, that means that their supposed messiah existed.

Following you so far. That is faulty logic. P does not imply Q

Even though Quirinius is real that does not prove the bible is factual.

Quote

Since there is no evidence for any Jesus Christ existed,

This is where I lose you. I don't see how establishing that Quirinius was not governor during 2 CE proves that there is no evidence of the existence of Jesus.

Under the best of circumstances it proves that the Governance of Quirinius does not constitute evidence for Jesus. But that premise was already established without it.

Quote

no date of birth, conflicting accounts in the books that are supposed to document his life divinely, no biblical events documented anywhere or supported by archeology, etc, Christians are left with a myth that is a lot like other myths from the era, that mention real people and places but aren't true at all.

I can see how if you were to support all of those claims you would have a valid argument. but you seem here simply to have insisted on the truth of them based somehow on historical records concerning a minor leader in the ancient near east. I would very much like to see your links.

I'm not trying to pick on you Velkyn. You are just the first one who attempted to answer me about the significance of this thread. You are by no means responsible to defend it.

Maybe it was just a piece of bait to hold out there and hope some Christian would bite and say something stupid about it?

The article cited in OP seems to indicate it was 2 CE when Quirinius was not governor

No, lorax. I’m asking you, not the OP.

Quote

Quote

No...are you? Are you trying to use it to prove he didn't?..I guess I just don't understand the significance of Quirinius at all. What does it prove either way?

Lots of Christians have tried to claim that since there was a governor and a census mentioned in the bible, that means that their supposed messiah existed.

Quote

Following you so far. That is faulty logic. P does not imply Q

Even though Quirinius is real that does not prove the bible is factual.

Good for you.

Quote

Since there is no evidence for any Jesus Christ existed,

Quote

This is where I lose you. I don't see how establishing that Quirinius was not governor during 2 CE proves that there is no evidence of the existence of Jesus.

Have you read the bible, lorax? Now, let me clarify. Christians use the mention of a governor and a census in their gospels to support the claim that JC existed. They also move around what they claim as his birthdate to fit the historical evidence for Quirnius and badly mangle what Romans actually did for their censuses.

Since there is no contemporary evidence for JC (a man who supposedly gathered thousands in an occupied land, was brought before a Roman gov’t official, etc) in the same time period as Quiriniu, whose existence is supported evidence that the Romans did keep records, etc, there is very little reason to think that JC existed.

Quote

I can see how if you were to support all of those claims you would have a valid argument. but you seem here simply to have insisted on the truth of them based somehow on historical records concerning a minor leader in the ancient near east. I would very much like to see your links.

and those claims have been supported repeatedly on this forum and on many websites. You’re not picking on me at all. I’d do the same if someone made a baseless claim to me and if you read my post, you know I indeed do that. Christians have already said many many stupid things about their religion, including claiming evidence where there is none. We get the usual nonsense about Josephus, Tacitus, etc etc ad infinitum. Rather than go into all of the various site etc, is there any particular claims of evidence for Jesus Christ, or any other biblical event , that you find especially compelling? You see, I’ve seen Christians use your “minor leader in the ancient near east” before as an excuse as why there is no evidence for JC. However, Christians forget the supposed events claimed in the bible that I’ve mentioned earlier: supposed *thousands* gathering just outside of Jerusalem in an occupied land; being brought before a Roman official, the supposed head of an entire Roman province. Can you tell me why this would not have been noticed? Around the 1 century CE, a legion was about 5500 people, pretty close to the claims of the crowds in the bible. Do you think a Roman would have noticed this?

And fellow forum mates, if you want, post the usual links to the stuff that shows how JC and other various events aren’t supported by evidence.

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

The article cited in OP seems to indicate it was 2 CE when Quirinius was not governor

No, lorax. I’m asking you, not the OP.

I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. Skimming the article represents the best information I've received on the subject to date

Quote

Quote

Since there is no evidence for any Jesus Christ existed,

Quote

This is where I lose you. I don't see how establishing that Quirinius was not governor during 2 CE proves that there is no evidence of the existence of Jesus.

Have you read the bible, lorax?

How is that a relevant question?

Quote

Now, let me clarify. Christians use the mention of a governor and a census in their gospels to support the claim that JC existed. They also move around what they claim as his birthdate to fit the historical evidence for Quirnius and badly mangle what Romans actually did for their censuses.

Right, yes and that's bad logic.

Quote

Since there is no contemporary evidence for JC

And that's bad too.

Usually when I see the word "since" it is a premise indicator, meaning that somewhere nearby in the argument this point has been established, but that's not the case here. Why is that?

Quote

(a man who supposedly gathered thousands in an occupied land, was brought before a Roman gov’t official, etc) in the same time period as Quiriniu, whose existence is supported evidence that the Romans did keep records, etc, there is very little reason to think that JC existed.

Quote

I can see how if you were to support all of those claims you would have a valid argument. but you seem here simply to have insisted on the truth of them based somehow on historical records concerning a minor leader in the ancient near east. I would very much like to see your links.

and those claims have been supported repeatedly on this forum and on many websites.

Okay, so your argument here relies on another argument from another thread.

Here's what I'm confused about: It seems that you are not only resting your major premise, but your entire argument on content from a previous thread. What does this thread contribute to the argument?

Quote

You’re not picking on me at all. I’d do the same if someone made a baseless claim to me and if you read my post, you know I indeed do that. Christians have already said many many stupid things about their religion, including claiming evidence where there is none. We get the usual nonsense about Josephus, Tacitus, etc etc ad infinitum. Rather than go into all of the various site etc, is there any particular claims of evidence for Jesus Christ, or any other biblical event , that you find especially compelling?

I can't say there is, no

Quote

You see, I’ve seen Christians use your “minor leader in the ancient near east” before as an excuse as why there is no evidence for JC. However, Christians forget the supposed events claimed in the bible that I’ve mentioned earlier: supposed *thousands* gathering just outside of Jerusalem in an occupied land; being brought before a Roman official, the supposed head of an entire Roman province.

Is there also no record of Pilate?

What head of a roman province is supposed by the bible who is not in evidence?

Quote

Can you tell me why this would not have been noticed?

no sit, I can't

Quote

Around the 1 century CE, a legion was about 5500 people, pretty close to the claims of the crowds in the bible. Do you think a Roman would have noticed this?

That question is confusing to me. Do I think a roman would have noticed a legion? or would have noticed a crowd of peasants? I suppose most Romans would notice either with the former obviously much more likely to be recorded historically.

What percent of all roman historical records that were written to we still have?

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

I'm kind of wondering, what was it that placed the Jesus myth in the first century? Why did it not appear earlier or later? And was there an event that made someone write down the myth?

Correct me if I am wrong, but nothing placed the Jesus myth in the first century. Later Christians placed the first century around the Jesus myth. The "event" in question that transformed the tales from loose oral and written traditions into a somewhat coherent[1] mythos occurred hundreds of years after the "fact" in the council halls of churches and the studies of scribes. It's retcon 101.

Poor Donald duck, he had to defeat Hitler's armies in WWII just like the real American soldiers..

After defeating Hitler Donald Duck's on a drunk'in weekend, he calls the hotel's front desk and asks for some condoms. The receptionist says "shall I put them on your bill? Donald says "Don't be thuckin thupid, I'd thuffocate.

Logged

The level of dumb they have to sell, is only made remotely possible by the level of flocking their sheep are willing to do in the name of rewards for no thought. quote: Kin Hell

"Faith is the enemy of evidence, for when we know the truth, no faith is required." Graybeard

I'm kind of wondering, what was it that placed the Jesus myth in the first century? Why did it not appear earlier or later? And was there an event that made someone write down the myth?

Correct me if I am wrong, but nothing placed the Jesus myth in the first century. Later Christians placed the first century around the Jesus myth. The "event" in question that transformed the tales from loose oral and written traditions into a somewhat coherent[1] mythos occurred hundreds of years after the "fact" in the council halls of churches and the studies of scribes. It's retcon 101.

I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. Skimming the article represents the best information I've received on the subject to date.

Cool. I’d recommend that you do some more research if you are interested.

Quote

How is that a relevant question?

it would tell me how familiar you are with the claims in question.

Quote

And that's bad too.Usually when I see the word "since" it is a premise indicator, meaning that somewhere nearby in the argument this point has been established, but that's not the case here. Why is that?

Well, lorax, can you show me contemporary evidence for JC? If you can’t, then the point has been established. Christians have been trying to find this evidence for centuries and they have nothing.

Quote

Okay, so your argument here relies on another argument from another thread.Here's what I'm confused about: It seems that you are not only resting your major premise, but your entire argument on content from a previous thread. What does this thread contribute to the argument?

These should give you a good start on the debate and the facts presented.

Quote

I can't say there is, no

Okay, for someone who seems to think that my claims are wrong, you seem rather disinterested in any information to correct that impression.

Quote

Is there also no record of Pilate? What head of a roman province is supposed by the bible who is not in evidence?

Hatter is right. There is the Pilate Stone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_Stone However, using this as evidence for the existence of a man/god is rather like saying that since New York City is mentioned in a Spiderman comic book, that means that Spidey exists. The Illiad mentions people and places that exist, does that mean that Athena and Zeus do also?

Quote

That question is confusing to me. Do I think a roman would have noticed a legion? or would have noticed a crowd of peasants? I suppose most Romans would notice either with the former obviously much more likely to be recorded historically.

I am asking if you think that the occupying Romans would have noticed a gathering of thousands of people just outside of Jerusalem, in a province that had been racked with rebellion. The term “zealot” comes from this period, when there were Jews who were intent on getting rid of the Roman occupation and seemed ot have used terroristic methods.

Quote

What percent of all roman historical records that were written to we still have?

Hard to tell since we don’t know how much there was in the first place. Could there still be records found that say “Hey, we saw JC doing miracles and when we killed him there were dead people walking the streets”? Sure but Christians have been looking for 2000+ years now. With such dramatic and ostensibly wide spread phenomena, why nothing? No contemporary culture in the area the eastern Mediterreanan reports the events that the bible claims as true. No darkening of the sun or earthquake at the cruxifiction, no gatherings of thousands of people, no miracles noted, no exodus from Egypt, no flood, etc.

I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. Skimming the article represents the best information I've received on the subject to date.

Cool. I’d recommend that you do some more research if you are interested.

Quote

How is that a relevant question?

it would tell me how familiar you are with the claims in question.

Fair enough, I've paged through it

Quote

Quote

And that's bad too.Usually when I see the word "since" it is a premise indicator, meaning that somewhere nearby in the argument this point has been established, but that's not the case here. Why is that?

Well, lorax, can you show me contemporary evidence for JC? If you can’t, then the point has been established.

No I cannot, and no that is not true. I do not represent the totality of all evidence gathering mechanisms in the universe. So the fact that no evidence exists does not follow logically from the fact that I do not have evidence.

Quote

Christians have been trying to find this evidence for centuries and they have nothing.

Quote

Okay, so your argument here relies on another argument from another thread.Here's what I'm confused about: It seems that you are not only resting your major premise, but your entire argument on content from a previous thread. What does this thread contribute to the argument?

Yes, the information has been presented on another thread. That doesn’t invalidate it does it?

It does not invalidate the truth of the premise.

But you didn't answer my question. If both of your premises are being handwaved from another thread, than why say anything at all? What is the significance of Quirinius?

Quote

This thread was started with a question on attempts to “harmonize” the various conflicting claims in the gospels by Christians attempting to use Roman history and retconning their myth to fit this history.

These should give you a good start on the debate and the facts presented.

Okay, So I reread the OP and apparently he is looking for help with another argument he is in someplace else.

Is the person he is arguing with under the impression that the article cited proves Jesus loves him? Or is the article cited in response to an argument the OP forwarded that the fact Quirinius was not governor of Syria means Jesus does not love him (or does not exist)?

Either way I think it's pretty clear that both arguments are illogical

Quote

Quote

I can't say there is, no

Okay, for someone who seems to think that my claims are wrong, you seem rather disinterested in any information to correct that impression.

I have no objection to your conclusion. It is the argument that I find illogical

Surely you know that bad arguments can have true conclusions

If I'm the sexiest man alive then oranges are a fruitI AM the sexiest man alivetherefore oranges are a fruit

(the problem in this case being the first premise since the second premise and conclusion are obviously true)

Quote

Quote

Is there also no record of Pilate? What head of a roman province is supposed by the bible who is not in evidence?

Hatter is right. There is the Pilate Stone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_Stone However, using this as evidence for the existence of a man/god is rather like saying that since New York City is mentioned in a Spiderman comic book, that means that Spidey exists. The Illiad mentions people and places that exist, does that mean that Athena and Zeus do also?

It appeared that you made a claim earlier that there was a head of a whole roman province listed in the bible which there was no evidence for. Did I misread it, or were you thinking of another Roman Leader?

Quote

Quote

That question is confusing to me. Do I think a roman would have noticed a legion? or would have noticed a crowd of peasants? I suppose most Romans would notice either with the former obviously much more likely to be recorded historically.

I am asking if you think that the occupying Romans would have noticed a gathering of thousands of people just outside of Jerusalem, in a province that had been racked with rebellion. The term “zealot” comes from this period, when there were Jews who were intent on getting rid of the Roman occupation and seemed ot have used terroristic methods.

somebody would probably have noticed

Quote

Quote

What percent of all roman historical records that were written to we still have?

Hard to tell since we don’t know how much there was in the first place.

That's not good for you

Quote

Could there still be records found that say “Hey, we saw JC doing miracles and when we killed him there were dead people walking the streets”? Sure but Christians have been looking for 2000+ years now. With such dramatic and ostensibly wide spread phenomena, why nothing? No contemporary culture in the area the eastern Mediterreanan reports the events that the bible claims as true. No darkening of the sun or earthquake at the cruxifiction, no gatherings of thousands of people, no miracles noted, no exodus from Egypt, no flood, etc.

Here you seem to be defending your minor premise (if P then Q) that if there is no evidence then that's bad for Christianity.

Tertullian, a well educated and well informed Christian propagandist, said it was when Saturninus was governor. Tertullian could have been going on verbal traditions that have been submerged.

As for the date of Christmas, it was Gnostics who first decided to celebrate it His birth. There was a verbal tradition that Jesus was born in the 9th month. That couldn't, absolutely could not, mean that it was the 9th month after Joseph and Mary got married. You know what that would imply. So the Gnostics in Egypt put it in the 9th month of the Egyptian calendar. Some Christians in what is now Turkey took the celebration from the Gnostics. They put it in the 9th month of the Jewish calendar. Eventually it was moved to the 9th month of the Roman seasonal calendar which starts on March 25, so therefore at the end of the Saturnalia holiday which runs Dec 17 thru Dec 25. It was also useful to preempt that holiday.

Buddha was born on the full moon night in the month of Kartikka (October-November)[1]. He had his Enlightenment on the full moon night of Kartikka just about as he turned 40. He died at the age of 80 in the month of Kartikka. So Buddhists celebrate his birthday at that time.

Except Japanese Buddhists. They moved his birthday to April 8 and cover his statue with flower garlands. It is so obviously a springtime observance that I assume that the date was set to preempt some Shinto spring festival. (Japanese Buddhists in the US move the celebration to the Sunday nearest April 8.)

No I cannot, and no that is not true. I do not represent the totality of all evidence gathering mechanisms in the universe. So the fact that no evidence exists does not follow logically from the fact that I do not have evidence.

Your argument is based on looking under every rock for a being that is omnipotent, omniscient and supposedly has cuased this universe to exist. There is no reason to assume that such a being would be hiding and be so hard to find. It’s the Russel’s teapot nonsense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Quote

It does not invalidate the truth of the premise. But you didn't answer my question. If both of your premises are being handwaved from another thread, than why say anything at all? What is the significance of Quirinius?

They are not being “hand-waved”. You seem evidently too lazy to actually look at any evidence presented. I’ve already said this. Christians claim that since Quirinius existed, and that their bible mentions a governor and mentions a census (badly mangled), this means that their god exists and their bible is accurate. Since they cannot agree on when the bible events happened, and cannot give evidence that these events happened at all, this fails and their attempted use of Quinirius demonstrates that they are not to be trusted since they are attempting to fit their myths to reality. One does not need to play with logic arguments to note what’s wrong with Chrisitianity.

Quote

Okay, So I reread the OP and apparently he is looking for help with another argument he is in someplace else.Is the person he is arguing with under the impression that the article cited proves Jesus loves him? Or is the article cited in response to an argument the OP forwarded that the fact Quirinius was not governor of Syria means Jesus does not love him (or does not exist)?

Lorax, just read the posts. You can tell what’s going on from them. And read my links and you’ll see that they show that Christians are fully of bs when it comes to their claims about their myths.

Quote

Either way I think it's pretty clear that both arguments are illogical

Then show it. For all the accusastions you make of me “hand-waving” you do quite a bit yourself.

Quote

I have no objection to your conclusion. It is the argument that I find illogicalSurely you know that bad arguments can have true conclusionsIf I'm the sexiest man alive then oranges are a fruitI AM the sexiest man alivetherefore oranges are a fruit(the problem in this case being the first premise since the second premise and conclusion are obviously true)

Yep, I know this and I’ve not seen you show that there are bad arguments on both sides. From your inability to follow the conversation in the thread, I’m not even sure you understand the argument at all.

Quote

It appeared that you made a claim earlier that there was a head of a whole roman province listed in the bible which there was no evidence for. Did I misread it, or were you thinking of another Roman Leader?

First, answer my questions, lorax. Don’t just ignore them. I ask them for good reasons. And if you wish to debate the bible, I suggest you know what the heck you are trying to argue for and against. There is a very excellent bible website: http://www.biblegateway.com and this is the verse being discussed:

Quote

Luke 2: 1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register. 4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.

The claims here get how roman censuses were done wrong. It disagrees with the other claims about JC’s birth, etc. It seems to only mention Quirinius in an attempt to give some authority to these claims, and was written long after the supposed evenets.

Quote

That's not good for you

It’s not bad for me either. It’s just the desperate claims of Christians based on the nonsense of Russell’s teapot again. There is no reason to suspect that all evidence for such amazing events have selectively disappeared.

Quote

Here you seem to be defending your minor premise (if P then Q) that if there is no evidence then that's bad for Christianity. I have no problem with this premise.What does it have to do with Quirinius?

No kidding. And again, read the thread and you can understand. You seem to be very interested in Quirinius and ignoring the main issue, the validity of the claism of Christians and how they play out in reality.

« Last Edit: February 06, 2012, 09:49:35 AM by velkyn »

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

Here you seem to be defending your minor premise (if P then Q) that if there is no evidence then that's bad for Christianity. I have no problem with this premise.What does it have to do with Quirinius?

No kidding. And again, read the thread and you can understand. You seem to be very interested in Quirinius and ignoring the main issue, the validity of the claism of Christians and how they play out in reality.

I disagree that the claims some other people made to you somewhere else are the main point.

my main point is (and has always been) to figure out what the heck you're talking about on this thread.

What seemed to me at first to be a confused argument is appearing more and more like an intentional misleading illogical brow beating of a particular dogma you have where in anything and everything that doesn't provide absolute proof of a viewpoint you dislike can be used and manipulated an an opportunity to declare victory for your side.

Frankly I thought higher of your side than that, but I can see I was wrong.

It appeared that you made a claim earlier that there was a head of a whole roman province listed in the bible which there was no evidence for. Did I misread it, or were you thinking of another Roman Leader?

I didn't note that claim, and since it wasn't mine, I cannot account for it. However, the Roman province/town of "Nazareth" did not exist until about the 3rd or 4th century, or arguably about 156AD at the earliest.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Are you a theist? And if so, what type? Are you an atheist? An agnostic?

Quote

I disagree that the claims some other people made to you somewhere else are the main point.

I don't care. I am supporting the issues here with those other threads.

Quote

my main point is (and has always been) to figure out what the heck you're talking about on this thread. What seemed to me at first to be a confused argument is appearing more and more like an intentional misleading illogical brow beating of a particular dogma you have where in anything and everything that doesn't provide absolute proof of a viewpoint you dislike can be used and manipulated an an opportunity to declare victory for your side.Frankly I thought higher of your side than that, but I can see I was wrong.

and here are the claims of just how logical you are and how I am not, with an addition of accusing me of beign misleading. What a nice strawman and a lovely attempt at a personal attack. Expected. Somethign that has no evidence to support it doesn't need me to show how it's false. I do like to show how religoin tries to glom onto actual facts in order to misrepresent that its claims are just as true. It's rather like me saying that I have magical knowledge of Asgard since I see all about it in the Thor comic book and that comic book also mentions New York City and Kansas.

« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 11:55:34 AM by velkyn »

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

It appeared that you made a claim earlier that there was a head of a whole roman province listed in the bible which there was no evidence for. Did I misread it, or were you thinking of another Roman Leader?

I didn't note that claim, and since it wasn't mine, I cannot account for it. However, the Roman province/town of "Nazareth" did not exist until about the 3rd or 4th century, or arguably about 156AD at the earliest.

Nazareth didn't exist until 60 years after the book of John was written?

It appeared that you made a claim earlier that there was a head of a whole roman province listed in the bible which there was no evidence for. Did I misread it, or were you thinking of another Roman Leader?

I didn't note that claim, and since it wasn't mine, I cannot account for it. However, the Roman province/town of "Nazareth" did not exist until about the 3rd or 4th century, or arguably about 156AD at the earliest.

Nazareth didn't exist until 60 years after the book of John was written?

However, one foundation of the correct era and location has been found. One. Which still doesn't consititute a town

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Are you a theist? And if so, what type? Are you an atheist? An agnostic?

I'm a Norse Pagan.

And you're an ass

Asatru? From your words in one of the other threads, it sure seemed like you were respondign as a Christian.

BTW, Odin, Thor, Freya, Baldur, etc, don't appear to exist either. Which is a pity since they seem better than Christianity. At least Odin sacrificed for wisdom. All of the arguments against Christianity work against any other religion.

and I see nothing to rebut my observations.

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB